WSD vs Men's frames

OK, I know we've discussed this before, but it pertains to ME now ;) Shopping for a new bike, which is difficult in July. Supply is limited and you can't order anything yet. I'm learning that "women's bike" just means different handlebars (drop/reach) and saddle. I thought it also meant shorter top tube, but if you compare Trek Madone 5.2 men & women's, the geometry is exactly the same! (Of course, finding a small men's frame isn't easy, either)

Then I read this on Cervelo:
“Women have proportionally longer legs than men and therefore need different geometries” – that’s the statement most commonly used to justify women-specific geometries. The only problem is, that’s not true. Analyzing anthropometric studies and crunching the numbers, men and women aren’t dramatically different. Yes, on average women are statistically shorter than men. But no, small women are not proportionally different from small men. And likewise, tall women do not have much different body proportions than tall men. This is what the numbers clearly say. You’re wondering why there are still gender-specific bikes on the market? Sometimes stereotypes are easier to grasp than science. Even the big proponents of women’s specific geometry are quietly agreeing - many are now offering “advanced women’s geometries”, which – surprise, surprise – is identical to their “men’s geometry”.

I'm looking to upgrade to carbon fiber, shimano ultegra, relaxed geometry and compact double. I know some of you out there ride "men's" frames.

I'm 5'5. Thought I needed a 50, but headed to the fitter on Wed to see if the 52 would also work.

Thoughts on this WSD? Marketing mumbo jumbo? It isn't making MY shopping experience any easier. One of the bike shops tried to explain it to me, but clearly, they aren't supposed to poo-poo the women's frames, in case they offend the mother ship. Is there anything else I need to know if I try a man's frame? (I'm switching to a bike shop with VERY reputable fitters).

I tend to think it's mostly marketing mumbo jumbo, although I happen to ride a WSD bike that actually is somewhat different than most bikes of comparable size (a 2006 Bianchi Eros Donna). At the end of the day, you just need to analyze whether any specific bike's geometry will work for you irrespective of whether it is WSD or not. Of course, there's more to fit than top tube length or standover.

I only ride men's frames. (even the mixte I'm considering has "men's" geometry)

I tried a WSD once and hated it thoroughly. The short top-tube was not my friend. Yup, I've got long legs, but I've also got long arms. (my wingspan is nearly 6 feet, but I'm only 5'8" on a good day)

WSD proportions probably matter for some women - and some men. But not all women are going to love WSD. Just as not all men are going to fit perfectly on the typical men's frame.

Didn't we have a guy visit TE a while back saying he fit WSD best and did we know of a WSD that wasn't pink or floral?

Perhaps a lot of it now is marketing hype. Kind of like the minimal shoe "revolution" happening right now in running. Some folks do better in minimal shoes (like we all wore 30 years ago). Some folks do better in highly constructed shoes. We're riding the minimal wave right now, but expecting everyone to wear minimal shoes is much like expecting all women to go for short top tubes.

(when we're not talking about slapping some pink and some narrow bars on a frame and calling it WSD)

ETA: I ride 52cm and 53cm frames for the most part. According to every "magical equation" I've plugged my and my bikes' measurements into, each of my bikes is the perfect fit. I used to poo-poo "magical equations", but then I played with them all weekend. I'll accept them for frame size, but I'm very VERY not convinced they work for fine-tuning fit and position. Those are just too personal and variable to each rider.

Hey Indysteel!
Standover: I can barely stand over my current bike. I was told that wasn't an accurate analysis. However, another bike shop used it to determine I needed a 50 instead of 52. Still confused.

(disclaimer- I have worked as a marketing person for a bike company).

Not really mumbo jumbo. The bike is designed DIFFERENT. However not ALL women need to ride WSD bikes and sometimes maybe a man might need it.

Ride the bike that fits you best. My DH and I can ride the same frame size even though he is taller- our inseam lengths are the same. However his torso and arms are very much longer than mine so he can go for a longer reach handlebar setup.

Everyone is different and I personal did not like the push of- "you're female so you need a women's bike" some lazy bike store people seemed to have.

FWIW, I used to have a men's Trek 2000. I put the shortest possible stem on it and still had to hunch my shoulders to reach the handlebars. Last year I bought a WSD Trek (Madone 4.7) in the same frame size. It fits me much better. The geometry is definitely different from the old bike. And I don't hunch my shoulders anymore.

I'm starting to think that a lot of it's marketing. Some manufacturers seem to shave a minimal amount off the top tube and call it WSD. I do ride a WSD frame, but it's got a top tube that's only half a centimeter shorter than the "men's" model. I need a short top tube, but I'm starting to think I can get away with a unisex frame provided that the ETT is short enough.

I went bike not-shopping the other day at an LBS I've never visited except to buy tubes. I had a nice chat with the owner. He guessed that at 5'6.75" with a short torso, I could ride a 52cm Madone WSD, or a size smaller unisex.

I think it depends on the bike.

Fit is what counts, so I'd try all bikes possible. I don't ride a WSD frame (I tried a couple during my recent search for a new bike; did not care for them, but it was related to how bike felt to me). My old bike was a Felt with very traditional geometry, 54cm, with reach that was too long for me. I now ride a Cannondale Synapse, 53cm, and I love it. I did not have to change anything out of the box.

@ny_biker: the Trek 2000 also looks like classic geometry, longer top tube...

I have a unisex x-small Kuota, that has had everything changed; stem, handlebars, shifters/levers. The ett is OK, but I would like a bike with more relaxed geometry. The stem is cut so much, it feels squirrelly. Some of it is my handling skills, but I've learned my lesson. No new carbon for me in the immediate future, though. Next year I will most likely buy a custom titanium or steel bike with couplers and that will have everything the way it should be.
I had 2 WSD bikes that fit fine, particularly my Trek 5200 47 cm. The only issues i had were my own physical issues that I didn't attend to with stretching or PT. Both of those bikes had 650 wheels, which I never saw any difference with.

For me, WSD on the 2006 Bianchi made a big difference (I have short legs AND short arms. I need a shorter top tube). I really think there's no one conclusion about this, and that you just plain have to test-ride both and not let any store person talk you into anything that doesn't feel right, period.

Good fit is good fit, whether it's WSD or not. As long as you can achieve a good fit, the label isn't important. The contents of the geometry charts are much more important, IMVHO.

Of all of my bikes, only one is WSD, but they all fit well. On a related note, my WSD roadie is a Fuji, and their WSD geometry chart that year was the same (line for line!) as their unisex CCR geometry (Carbon Comfort Road, I think). It fits well and, in the end, that's what mattered most.

Well said, Becky. Whether it's a marketing gimmic or not, it comes down to the numbers, not the label, as they relate to YOUR body. Even assuming that some manufacturers actually do offer WSD bikes that are truly different from their unisex counterparts (and from what I've seen, some do, some don't), they aren't going to work for all women. So, no matter how you view it, you still need to figure out what's going to work for you.

As for standover, so long as you can straddle the bike safely with your road shoes on, I don't think it's as critical as other measurements. I have very little standover on my Bianchi, and it's never caused a problem. I have short legs, however, and it is a limiting factor when it comes to some bikes.

I rode a unisex 10 speed as a teen, but since taking up cycling again, I didn't try any men's bikes. Both my bikes were 44 cm, WSD, but the Ruby fits me much better- I'm not so stretched out on it. I never actually analyzed the geometry. I don't know if that's helpful or not.

I don't know generalities, but I certainly have longer legs than most men my height. But I also have ridiculously long arms and a long torso. I ride unisex frames and at 5'7", generally start by looking at a 54cm (or 52 for cross) and work from there. My little sister, same height as I am but completely different build, rides a 51cm WSD. So there really is no right or wrong answer. Go with what works :)

I'm 5'0 and currently have a 47cm Trek 2000 men's bike. My biggest issue was being short (short legs with longer arms and torso) and having no adjustability in the handle bars and limited with the seat. We had gone back to Charlotte to get some stuff out of storage (all stuff now here) and stopped by our old LBS and told them what was going on with the bike I had recently bought (didn't take it with us). Anyway got us an adapter and picked a stem they thought would work. We got it home and hubby changed it out and we got it adjusted and now I have a bit better adjustability and have it where I'm not at the complete edge of being able to fit it. Also due to that I'm thinking when I'm ready for a new bike it's going to be a men's frame and I'm also either driving two hours to the LBS I like in Raleigh or driving 5 hours back to our old LBS in Charlotte for my new bike. Will NOT deal with the local LBS for certain things such as clothing or a new bike. They think because I'm a woman I have to have women's clothing or a women's bike. The LBS in Charlotte wants to make sure I fit what I like as does the one I like in Raleigh.

I think much of this is marketing, but fit is paramount. Proportionally speaking I've long legs, and several reasons why I need an upright riding position + quite short reach. My one WSD bike was sold at a loss because it was too big - if Trek made the 7.6 FX in a smaller size would that have happened? Unsure, but since the bike was too big it is difficult to determine if the problem was from the design or the bike just being too large for me.

If it weren't for my short reach I would ride a 52 cm frame, but for fit reasons I ride a 46-48 cm frame. That being said, my two non-custom bikes are unisex, not WSD at all (LHT and Jamis Dakar). I think the fit will still need dialed in on the Jamis, but I need to get more comfortable on the trails before we figure that out...

The point is to try everything out there, and find what fits the best. If an LBS won't show you non-WSD frames, then take your money somewhere else. In the end you might well need WSD, but you need to try all of your options.

ONE IMPORTANT thing that many of you are forgetting- you are all talking about the top tube difference-but most women's specific design have a taller HEADTUBE! so it will be a little more upright, not as aggressive- but also bring everything in closer.

It all depends on your body. A marketing strategy, probably, but the truth is the WSD bikes work really nice for some women. But they also work really great on some guys too, lol. I sold a WSD bike to a very leggy and rather short man last week and though he was not crazy about the paint job he was smart enough to realize he could 'guy' it up a bit and also have the comfort factor too. It's kinda funny now since us girls are usually 'girling' our boring male oriented paint jobs up to make them more 'ours'. :) At our shop we go by Serotta's proportion fitting system and it will then pull up a whole list of bikes, sizes, manufacturers that have the best lengths and combos of tube to best fit that person. I won't say its a perfect system b/c everyone has different mobilities too.

All that aside I'm a girl and I ride a WSD. I got lucky and found a bike that worked really awesome for me. I did get a custom fitting done on it too where me and my fitter tweaked some things. See not perfect though! Fittings are just so important.

From my experience, Trek and Cannondale "shrink it and pink it". They put shorter reach shifters, narrower bars, usually shorter cranks and a women's saddle then say it is WSD. Specialized uses a different geometry. I cannot ride Specialized women's mountain bikes even though I am the "typical" WSD build. I like a longer top tube on my mountain bike and yes the WSD is also much more upright which I didn't like. My Specialized mountain bike is my first unisex bike.

So yes, some people it is marketing BS. Some companies actually put thought, resources and engineering into a different geometry but some men should ride the WSD geometry.

I got totally duped when I bought my Cannondale thinking it was a different geometry, then when I found all the aches and pains I was having I looked at a geometry chart and realized I hadn't done my homework and was paying the price with an ill fitting bike. On a road bike I like a shorter top tube for comfort I don't like aggressive geometry road bikes, my plan is to sell my Cannondale at some point (when I can afford a replacement) and will likely go Specialized WSD.

If you like a Trek and hate the women's scheme get the "unisex" and you can swap the bars, shifters and saddle then you're pretty much at WSD.

What is interesting in this discussion is that we often forget that fit on the bike is also affected by individual flexibility and core strength. If there is really little variation in anthropometric measurements between men and women (as the Cervelo guys argue, but I've read this elsewhere, too), then we might be responding more to the flexibility/core strength issue. I certainly can tell the difference in my riding when I am in better shape relative to when I am not.

Do you have a link to the anthropometric data?

I've been reading that women generally have shorter arms and torsos than men since WAY before there was such a thing as WSD frames. So I'm skeptical that that concept is a marketing scam.

As far as the other, it's just one more thing you can't generalize - whether it's environmental friendliness, fair trade, or WSD. Unless a term is regulated, some companies are going to claim it and really do it, and other companies are just going to claim it.

There's sizing, and there's fitting.

Sizing and choosing a frame would be like looking at how big a frame, what geometry, what material. Like going to a bridal shop and picking out the size, style, and fabric of a wedding dress.

Then there's fitting the saddle and bar types, positions, tilts, crank arms, pedals, etc. Like having that wedding dress tailored so it fits you perfectly.

I've seen women with good frame sizes, and very bad fits. I've seen women with the absolute wrong frame size and huge efforts to make it fit. If I have a woman in for a fit and I see she's on an expensive frame that is too small with expensive add-ons to make it fit, I can almost guess which shop stiffed her for it. If I see a woman with a great frame size but slightly odd fit (more like the way a typical man would be fit) I can pretty much guess which shop set her up. Mind you, I only see the people with pain and injury from their bikes, so what I see is very biased.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to have a bike fit if you can swing it.

Grab a friend and a copy of Andy Pruitt's book, or fit info from Youtube or Sheldon, or even just look up KOPS and start there. Even if you suspect the frame geometry isn't the best for you, you might be able to tweak your bike enough to fit, whether WSD or not. And if getting a new bike, ask your shop if they do fittings for people who purchase from them. Some will fit you first for a fee, then apply that fee to the purchase price of the bike. A good fitting will take an hour at least, and will cost some money in one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Do you have a link to the anthropometric data?

---

I actually wish I had some good references. I have not been able to find anything in journals one could consider reputable (say, by at least having their abstracts in the ISI Web of Science). Yet, Cervelo makes the claim and I cannot remember the other place that I saw it. I wonder if those claims are based on the data of sponsored teams. Perhaps we should do our own poll data collection.

Okay, so I have A question. I have all my measurements and now would like some reputable online bike geometry calculators to play with. I found one that only wanted my sex, height and leg length. I'm 5'6" with 32.5" leg length (I think that's 83 cm), a 57.5 cm torso and 56 cm arms. This particular calculator said I needed a 56 frame. It didn't even ask about my torso or arms.
I have found the leMond calculator. Any other calculators I should know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama

From my experience, Trek and Cannondale "shrink it and pink it". They put shorter reach shifters, narrower bars, usually shorter cranks and a women's saddle then say it is WSD. Specialized uses a different geometry. I cannot ride Specialized women's mountain bikes even though I am the "typical" WSD build. I like a longer top tube on my mountain bike and yes the WSD is also much more upright which I didn't like. My Specialized mountain bike is my first unisex bike.

So yes, some people it is marketing BS. Some companies actually put thought, resources and engineering into a different geometry but some men should ride the WSD geometry.

I got totally duped when I bought my Cannondale thinking it was a different geometry, then when I found all the aches and pains I was having I looked at a geometry chart and realized I hadn't done my homework and was paying the price with an ill fitting bike. On a road bike I like a shorter top tube for comfort I don't like aggressive geometry road bikes, my plan is to sell my Cannondale at some point (when I can afford a replacement) and will likely go Specialized WSD.

If you like a Trek and hate the women's scheme get the "unisex" and you can swap the bars, shifters and saddle then you're pretty much at WSD.

---

My Trek WSD bike is gray with white and black trim. Quite dull, actually.

I don't remember the specs and they're not online any more, but I do remember that the men's version of my Synapse - which is the same as yours - had at least a 1.5 cm longer top tube in the same model year.

Now, the seat tube angle and the setback it requires might obviate the shorter top tube. But the frames weren't identical, I remember that for sure, because I spent a good amount of time poring over the specs. There wasn't much difference at all between the Spec' Ruby that I'd test ridden and knew would fit, vs. the C'dale Synapse Feminine that I didn't get a chance to test ride but bought anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velocivixen

Okay, so I have A question. I have all my measurements and now would like some reputable online bike geometry calculators to play with. I found one that only wanted my sex, height and leg length. I'm 5'6" with 32.5" leg length (I think that's 83 cm), a 57.5 cm torso and 56 cm arms. This particular calculator said I needed a 56 frame. It didn't even ask about my torso or arms.
I have found the leMond calculator. Any other calculators I should know?

---

Really, forget the online calculators and go to a person who has lots of experience in bike fitting. I would find it extremely surprising if you actually fit on a 56cm bike.

Velocivixen - wrenchscience.com has a fit calculator that walks you through a number of measurements. May be no substitute for a real fitting but can be an interesting exercise.

I actually prefer the leaned over position of a road bike to a mountain bike. I have a fairly new mountain bike. Bought last year from my old LBS in Ohio while up there visiting. That store is great and they fit me to it to make sure everything was good. Of course we had to take the wheels off to get it home. LOL. I also bought my road bike (used men's 47cm Trek 2000) last summer. Although it's not a perfect fit (have made some changed thanks to our old LBS in Charlotte) that has made it fit much better, I'm more comfortable on it and it's almost exclusively due to the more leaned over position. We've actually made a couple of changes to get me more stretched out on the mountain bike which has helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama

From my experience, Trek and Cannondale "shrink it and pink it". They put shorter reach shifters, narrower bars, usually shorter cranks and a women's saddle then say it is WSD. Specialized uses a different geometry. I cannot ride Specialized women's mountain bikes even though I am the "typical" WSD build. I like a longer top tube on my mountain bike and yes the WSD is also much more upright which I didn't like. My Specialized mountain bike is my first unisex bike.

So yes, some people it is marketing BS. Some companies actually put thought, resources and engineering into a different geometry but some men should ride the WSD geometry.

I got totally duped when I bought my Cannondale thinking it was a different geometry, then when I found all the aches and pains I was having I looked at a geometry chart and realized I hadn't done my homework and was paying the price with an ill fitting bike. On a road bike I like a shorter top tube for comfort I don't like aggressive geometry road bikes, my plan is to sell my Cannondale at some point (when I can afford a replacement) and will likely go Specialized WSD.

If you like a Trek and hate the women's scheme get the "unisex" and you can swap the bars, shifters and saddle then you're pretty much at WSD.

---

There's some difference between the unisex Madone and the Madone WSD models I was looking at, to the point where I'd need different sizes. (But they're not huge differences, and I'm a long-legged freak ;) ) Cannondale and Giant seem to have minimal differences between the unisex and women's, at least, for the last couple of years. It's like half a centimeter of top tube length and they call it good. Either way, I can't afford the componentry swap, so unless my only option in that regard a pink bike (sorry, westtexas!), I'm going for the WSD.
I do like the Specialized WSD, though.

@Tulip & Marquise. Thanks for both perspectives. I would definitely go to a real person for a "fitting", but I have to buy a bike first. So it would be good to know what size I need. A sales woman at a LBS did my measurements and gave me a bike size of "51" as a starting point. I think that's too small for me. The bike I want is a Kona Honky Inc. and they come in 49, then 53. I felt closed in on the 49, so I presume I need the 53.
I know that bikes are sized differently.
I'll try the site you mentioned Marquise and see what it gives me.
Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velocivixen

I would definitely go to a real person for a "fitting", but I have to buy a bike first.

---

A good LBS will fit you up before you buy your bike, so that you won't be ordering a frame that doesn't fit you. Some brands and models will just never fit you in any size, no matter what they bolt onto the frame. That could be the situation with you and the Kona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velocivixen

.... The bike I want is a Kona Honky Inc. and they come in 49, then 53. I felt closed in on the 49, so I presume I need the 53.
I know that bikes are sized differently.....

---

It doesn't necessarily follow that the 53 would fit - a good LBS with a good fitter will help you determine which frame will fit you better before the purchase. My first LBS sold me the smallest Trek 7.6 FX, which wasn't inexpensive, but it was still too large for me & I didn't know enough to realize that at the time. I've since learned that some brands will never fit me...and I will also never purchase another bike from that store. Gear, yes, bikes....no.

That doesn't mean the 53 cm wouldn't fit you, but it is worth exploring it with a fitter to make certain that it will before you pull the trigger :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velocivixen

@Tulip & Marquise. Thanks for both perspectives. I would definitely go to a real person for a "fitting", but I have to buy a bike first. So it would be good to know what size I need. A sales woman at a LBS did my measurements and gave me a bike size of "51" as a starting point. I think that's too small for me. The bike I want is a Kona Honky Inc. and they come in 49, then 53. I felt closed in on the 49, so I presume I need the 53.
I know that bikes are sized differently.
I'll try the site you mentioned Marquise and see what it gives me.
Thanks.

---

@Velocivixen: It is not necessary to buy a bike. After testing a dozen bikes, I decided to get a professional fit and recommendations from the fitter. It cost me a bundle ($300), but I walked out with some recommendations about bikes (specific models and frame sizes) to look for or go with a custom bike. If I had bought from the shop that did the fitting session, I could have received a $200 credit towards the bike. I bought my bike elsewhere and the information from the fitting session was very valuable. I have the fit sheet for use anywhere.